Should the NRL have smaller in goal areas?

[innsaneink]

Its not a bad idea, take your hatred of the OP off for a second.

It might actually even improve a scenario of a poor kick thats easily fielded inside a larger in goal

That said theres probably other areas of the game that need attention moreso - stripping rule, PTB area(markers not square)...walking off the mark to name a few

 

[Bunniesman Lover]

I'm with Bunniesman on this one. Anything that encourages more ball play before penetrating the in goal sounds good to me.

 

[Tone83]

Bad idea.
Imagine how many tries $BW would blow trying to showcase.

Hmm, I'm starting to get sold on the idea.

 

[Captain Apollo]

If that was good enough to host a World Cup Final it can be good enough for NRL games.

Go and ask Brett Morris if he thinks 4.1 mtere in goals was "good enough" :crazy:

 

[blaza88z]

Which ground was it in Melbourne that had a particularly smaller in-goal area, so much so that the advertising was way too close to the end of the in-goal zone.. that was ridiculously dangerous

 

[simostorm]

Yes. Lets make it.. 1 metre of in goals and 10 metres of bricks, spikes and crocodiles.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I was wondering why so many posters here think that if you shorten the in-goal on the grass, suddenly the fences at all NRL grounds have shifted in too?

 

[Tone83]

I was wondering why so many posters here think that if you shorten the in-goal on the grass, suddenly the fences at all NRL grounds have shifted in too?

Yeah there are two issues here, in-goal length, and then the space behind the in-goal before you run into a fence. The latter needs to stay big definitely, the career ending injuries would just be ridiculously frequent and also we'd see the creative acrobatic plays that make NRL great decline due to fear. You need space behind the in goal.

In goal size is a separate issue, I can see both sides of the argument there.

 

[Joker's Wild]

I think it's a good idea tbh

Well done BM, you finally did it

 

[Dutchy]

I like option C.

 

[thorson1987]

Which ground was it in Melbourne that had a particularly smaller in-goal area, so much so that the advertising was way too close to the end of the in-goal zone.. that was ridiculously dangerous

Olympic park.

Wasn't much you could do with it though with the athletics track around it.

And with only the Storm playing out of it, the VIC government weren't going to do anything about it.

 

[Country Bronco]

I voted B, Bunniesman. You've got a good reasoning behind idea as in relation to tries scored from kicks but I've leaned towards a reduction in points from tries scored from kicks as a detterent in the past and thats where my view would be if rules needed to be changed.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Yeah welcome to what I was saying back in 2004. In goals only need to be big enough to ground the ball.

For those talking about Brett Morris last night, that's to do with the run off area. The same problem exists if the fence is one meter from the sideline, not really about pitch dimensions

 

[pennywisealfie]

wtf is with people in this thread thinking that shortening the in-goals somehow means that the ad boards will move even closer to the action than what they were before when in fact they would be further away. I love how everyone puts shit on Bunniesman due to stupidity, but in this thread, he is Einstein.

FTR, it's not a bad idea at all.

 

[Tom Shines]

I think teams should be able to choose how deep the in-goal is, say between 6-12m. Just like every cricket or baseball ground has different dimensions, clubs can change their in-goal areas to suit their game (ONLY at the start of the season).

 

[gypsy]

Great idea. Too predictable at the moment, due to teams just kicking cross field or trying to get a repeat set. Force the halves to be halves. Solid idea BM.

 

[lockyno1]

Should be shortened, bit not 4.1 metres. Go to 5.5 metres, all grounds.

 

[Canard]

I think teams should be able to choose how deep the in-goal is, say between 6-12m. Just like every cricket or baseball ground has different dimensions, clubs can change their in-goal areas to suit their game (ONLY at the start of the season).

They were previously. It was standardised about 10 or so years ago.

I can't however understand how any one of sane mind thinks it will reduce bombs or kicks to the wing by shortening them though.

It may reduce repeat set grubbers for about a week then when kickers get used to them it won't.

 

[Card Shark]

Should be shortened, bit not 4.1 metres. Go to 5.5 metres, all grounds.

Well if the rules say they can be 6 to 11m, to save another bloody rule change , just make them 6m across the board.

What cracks me up is the in-goals in rugby. Wasnt there 1 during the year about 15m?

For those that know Rugby, why are they so big?

 

[saint pebba]

How is option C only at 75%.

Surely everyone who votes should have had this as their second option.

For what it is worth, I think the in goals should be 7m exactly at all grounds. Encourage kickers to get the spots right and if they don't then over the dead ball line it goes.

Would also mean fullbacks/wingers would have to make an earlier decision about letting it go.